UNlVtRSiTY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
RiYERSIDE 


•(!|03  'uoiJiJOls 


El-.e  3(iiI]Ufl  i'iin'Innri  Ihiiin'rr.ilii 


The  Theory  of  the  Heroic  Epic 

in  Italian  Criticism  of  the 

Sixteenth  Century 


DISSEKTATIUN 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  BOARD  OF  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES  OK  THE  JOHNS  HOI'KINS 

UNIVERSITY  IN  CONFORMITY  WITH  THE  RKQUIRFMENTS  OF  THE 

DECREE  OF  DOCTOR   OF  THILOSOrHY 


i  RALPH  COPLESTONE  WILLIAMS 


1917 


uJl;r  3Jnl{un  iliti^lumi  llitiurniitii 


The  Theory  of  the  Heroic  Epic 

in  Italian  Criticism  of  the 

Sixteenth  Century 


DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THt  BOARD  OF  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES  OF  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS 

UNIVERSITY  IN  CONFORMITY  WITH  THE  REQUIREMENTS  OF  THE 

DECREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


RALPH  COPLESTONE  WILLIAMS 


1917 


\ 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

CRITICAL   WOUKS' 

1522.  Campiano,  N.  IJ.,  In  Artcm  Poclicam  Primordia.    Venetiis. 

1527.  ViDA,  M.  H.,  De  Arte  Poclica.    Crcmoua. 

1529.  TitissiNO,  G.  G.,  Dc  arte  poclica,  I-V.    Vicenz.i. 

1531.  Parkhasius,  J.,  In  Q.  Iloratii  Flacci  Arlem  Poeticam  CommetUaria. 
Kapoli. 

1535.  Dolce,  L.,  Translation  of  Horace's  Ars  Poclica.    Venice. 

1536.  Daniello,  B.,  Delia  poclica.    Vinegia. 

153G.    Paccius  (Pazzi),  A.,  Aristotclis  Poclica.    Venetiis. 

1548.    Roboutelli,  F.,  In  Libnim  Arislotelis  dc  Arte  Poclica  Explicaliones. 

Florentine. 
1510.     SK(iNi,  H.,  Ucttoririi  cl  Poclica  iVArixloklc.     Firon/x;. 
15.j().     ^[AI)U•s,  v.,  et  LoMRARDits,  li.,  In  Arixtotclis  Lihrum  dc  Poclica 

Explannliows.    Venetiis. 

1550.  M.NDius  (Maggi),  V.,  In  Q.  Iloratii  Flacci  de  Arte  Poelica  Inter- 

prclatio.     Venetiis. 

1551.  Muzio,  G.,  DcWarte  poclica.     Vinegia. 

1552.  GniFOU,  I.,  In  Artcm  Poclicam  Iloratii  Inlerpraetalio. 

1553.  Varchi,  B.,  Lezzioni  della  poclica.    Firenza. 

1553.  De  Nohes,  I.,  In  Epistolam  Q.  Iloratii  Flacci  de  Arte  Poetica  Inlcr- 

prelatio.     N'enetiis. 

1554.  GiRALDi  CiN'THio,  G.  B.,  Discorsi.     Vinegia. 
1554.     PiGNA,  G.  B.,  /  Romanzi.     Vinegia. 

1554.     LioxARDi,  A.,  Dialogi  della  invcntionc  poclica.     Venczia. 

1554.  LuisiNO,  F.,  7ji  Libriim  Q.  Ilorntii  Flacci  dc  Arte  Poelica  Commen' 

iarius.     Venetii.s. 

1555.  Capriano,  G.  P.,  Delia  vera  poclica.    Vinegia. 
1555.     Fabricius,  G.,  Opera  Q.  Iloratii  Flacci.     Basileae. 

1559.  MiNTURSO,  A.  S.,  Dc  Pacta  libri  kcx.    Venetiis. 

15G0.  VicTouius   (Vettori),   P.,   Commcnlarii  in  primum  Lihrum  Aris- 
totclis dc  Arte  Poctarum.     Florentiae.  \ 

1560.  Parthenio,  B.,  Della  imilalione  poelica.    Vinegia. 

1561.  ScALiGEK,  G.  C.,  Poc^iccs  Zi'fcci  sepfew.    Geneva. 

1562.  Tasso,  B.,  Ragionamento  della  poexia.     Vinegia. 

1563.  Trissino,  G.  G.,  Dc  arte  poclica,  V  and  VI.    Venezia. 

1564.  MiNTURNO,  A.  S.,  L'arle  poclica.    Venezia. 

1565.  Fabricius,  G.,  De  Re  Poclica.    Antwerp. 

1570.    Castelvetro,  L.,  Poelica  d'Aristotcle  vidyarizzata  el  sposla.    Vienna. 

'  For  a  more  complcto  Hut  ot  critical  treatises  in  Italy  in  the  slxtoeDth  conlury.  see 
my  article  in  Modern  Languaue  Notet  of  Documber,  1020. 


iv  BlBUOGRAPllY 


GENERAL  DIDUOGRArHY 


BAVDiiIF.n,  liibliogrniiliic  lijoiitiiiisr,  1895 — 

Belloxi,  Pmina  epico.     Vallardi  Scries.     Storia  dei  generi  klleraria  Ualiana. 

IUjtcher.  S.  II.,  Arislolle's  Theory  of  Poetry  and  Pine  Arl,  London,  2d  cd., 

1808. 
B\^VATER,  I.,  ArisMlc  on  Uie  Arl  of  Poetry,  Oxford,  1000. 
Canello,  Storia  delta  letlcratura  Ualiana  net  sec.  XVI,  Milano,  1880. 
Castelvetro,  Opcrc  varic  critifhc,  Milano,  1727. 
Charlton,  II.  B.,  Caslclrelro's  Theory  of  Poetry,  Manchester,  1913. 
CiiARK,  J.,  A  History  of  Epic  Poetry,  Edinburgh,  1900. 
Edner,  J.,  licitrag  zu  einer  Geschichtc  dcr  dramalisclien  EinhcUen  in  Ilcdien, 

Erlangen,  1898. 
Egcer,  IlcUcnisme  en  France,  Paris,  1869. 
Flamini,  II  Cinqncccnto,  Milano,  1903. 
FoFFANO,  F.,  II  pncma  cnvallcrcsco.     (Vallardi  series.) 
Gayley  and  Scott,  An  Introdw.lion  to  the  MeUtodsi  aiul  Materials  of  Literary 

Critiriimi,  Boston,  1899. 
MoRSOLiN,  Trissino,  Fircnze,  1894. 

Plato,  The  RtpuMic,  translated  into  English  by  B.  Jowett,  Oxford,  1888. 
Saintsdury,  a  History  of  Criticism,  Edinburgh,  1900-1904,  ii. 
Spingaiin,  J.  E.,  Literary  Criticism  in  the  lienai-ssaiico,  New  York,  1899. 
Symonds,  J.,  Renaissance  in  Italy,  London,  1889. 
ViLLKY,  P.,  Les  sources  italiennes  de  la  'Deffcn-se  el  lUustralion  de  la  langue 

fran^ise'  de  Joachim  Du  Bellay,  Paris,  1908. 


INTRODUCTION 

The  altcnlion  of  tlic  writer  was  cnllcd  to  tlm  subject  of  tlic  Ihooiy  of 
tlic  lioroic  epic  tlnoiiKli  liis  interest  in  tracing  llie  relatioiisliip  of  ideas 
l)Ctween  tlic  I'Vench  and  tlic  Italian  critics  of  tiie  sixtci'nth  century. 

Everj'wlierc  in  llic  writinKs  of  the  Pii'-iadc  the  ItaiiiUis  were  put  as 
literary  authorities  on  (lie  same  footing  a.s  the  ancients.  Moi-eover,  the 
Pl(''iade  attempted  and  put  into  cITect  the  suhstitiition  of  (he  ancient  and 
Italian  Kcmcs  for  the  forms  of  the  fifteenth  century.  It  was  the  Pl^iadc 
tiiat  established  in  France  tiic  epic,  the  tragedy,  the  ode,  the  satire,  and 
the  elegy — forms  which  had  Ijcen  discussed  so  considerably  in  Italy.  It  wa.s 
not  as  much  in  the  borrowing  of  "genres,"  however,  as  in  the  actual  appro- 
priation of  ideas,  that  France  was  Ifaly's  debtor.  Recent  investigation  has 
shown  conclusivel}'  that  often  there  is  little  more  than  a  serv'ile  copying.' 

Such  consiilerations  would  lead  one  to  conclude  that  the  French  attemi)ts 
to  reproduce  the  heroic  jioem  and  the  discussions  in  France  regarding  the 
manner  in  which  it  should  be  reproduced  were  influenced  by  the  example 
ond  the  precept  of  the  Itolians.* 

It  is  manifest,  then,  that  anyone  undertaking  to  define  the  extent  and 
the  character  of  the  influence  on  French  writers  of  Italian  ideas  regarding 
the  subject  would  have  to  examine,  on  tho  one  hand,  the  Italian  poems 
which  the  French  had  before  them  as  models,  and  on  the  other  hand,  the 
body  of  theoretical  precepts  which  was  accessible  to  the  French. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  interest  of  the  writers  of  the  P16iadc  in  the 
epic  was  primarily  theoretical,  it  is  natural  that  the  first  step  in  such  an 
investigation  as  I  have  mentioned  should  be  the  examination  of  the  theory 
of  the  heroic  epic  a-s  exjKJunded  by  Italian  writers,  and  it  is  this  examination 
that  is  attempted  in  the  pre.sent  dis.sertation.  Accordingly,  this  study  aims 
to  be  the  first  chapter  in  a  history  of  the  introduction  and  the  assimilation 
in  France  of  the  Italian  ideas  concerning  the  epic.    The  task  it  undertakes 

'  Cf.  on  IhU  fiucstion,  Vlllcy.  I.n  lourcn  HalirHiirt  Jr  In  ' Deffrnir  rl  ttlutlralion  rlt 
la  Innoue  fran^oitr'  dr  Joarhim  du  Brllay,  PariH,  lOOH;  i'artliurlor.  "QuelnuCfi  sources 
ItAllcnncs  do  Ronsard."  H'tur  dr  In  Rrnnimnnee,  VI  (1005),  i'2;  Picot.  /.r> /rancmi  ilnt- 
<ani$anli  au  XVlt  liicte,  Varis,  IdOO;    anil  studios  by  J.  Vianoy  in  liutleiin  •dilirn,  otc. 

*  On  tiiis  |>olnt,  cf.  iny  arllrlo  in  Modr.m  Lanouai/e  Not'H,  "Italian  Influoaco  on 
RoDsard's  Theory  of  llio  Epic"  (March,  1020). 


vi  Ivruouuci'iuN 

is  lliat  of  rollcctiiiK  .•iiul  .•miily/iiiK  the  availuliU"  body  of  It;ili:iii  oi)inioii  on 
l\m  matter  tlmiiiK  tlial  peiiotl  of  tlic  .sixteciilli  cciitiirj'  wliicli  is  early  ciioukIi 
to  allow  of  its  cxcrcisiiiR  infliiencc  ujoth  tlic  ideas  of  the  P16iade — that  is, 
before  1572,  the  dale  of  the  appearanee  of  Ronsard's  Framinde,  which 
re|)rcscntcd  the  cons\iinination  and  embodiment  of  tiic  critical  theories  of 
the  Pld'iade. 

TIic  material  examined  consisted  of  commentaries  and  editions  of 
Aristotle  and  Horace,  various  treatises  on  poetn,'  of  different  degrees  of 
originality,  and  lastly,  the  frapnentary  expressions  of  opinion  such  as  those 
contaiiied  in  letters  and  short  essays. 


EPIC  UNITY  AS  DISCUSSED  BY  SIXTEENTH-CENTURY 
CRITICS  IN  ITALY 


The  subjcct-niatlcr  of  the  epic  was  a  much  (hscusscd  question. 
There  was,  in  general,  an  intermingling  of  Aristotelian  and  Iloratian 
ideas  regarding  the  choice  of  subject.  The  matters  that  were  dis- 
cussed by  most  critics  are  as  follows:  (1)  tlie  kind  of  personages  who 
are  to  be  the  jjrotagonists  of  tlie  epic;  (2)  the  character  of  the  dceils 
of  these  personages,  which  form  the  subject  of  the  poem:  whether 
they  should  bo  deeds  of  war  or  of  both  jieacc  and  war;  whether 
virtuous  or  other  tlian  virtuous;  (3)  whether  the  subject  of  the 
poem  siiould  be  fact  or  fiction,  or  both;  (4)  what  are  the  especially 
suitable  details  which  find  their  place  naturally  in  the  cpiftrLv' 

Tlierc  arc  two  theories  regarding  the  purpose  of  jioctry  which 
enter  into  a  discussion  of  the  epic,  two  theories  wiiich  were  doi)ated 
even  before  Aristotle's  time  in  Greece — whether  poetry  was  written 
to  teach  or  to  delight.  The  traditional  theory  was  that  poetry  h.as 
a  direct  moral  jjurposi;  with  didactic  intent;  Homer  was  considered  \ 
not  so  much  an  inspired  poet  as  a  great  teaclier.  Aristotle  formu-  ' 
lated  the  other  theoiy  that  i)oetry  aims  to  produce  in  the  hearer 
an  emotional  delight,  a  purely  subjective  pleasure,  with  a  strictly 
aesthetic  end.  In  mainliiining  as  he  does  throughout  the  Poetics 
that  the  end  of  i)oetry  is  a  refined  ])Ieasure,  he  separates  himself 
from  those  wiio  believed  in  a  didactic  i)urpose,  but  he  does  not 
altogether  cast  aside  this  latter  viewiioint.  As  regards  the  delinea- 
tion of  character,  Aristotle  is  on  the  borderlanii  between  morals 
and  aesthetics.  The  aesthetic  representation  of  character  he  regards 
from  an  ethical  viewpoint  and  the  different  types  of  character  he 
reduces  to  moral  categories;  but  he  never  permits  the  moral  cITects 
of  his  art  to  supplant  the  artistic  and  pleasurable  end.  To  the 
degree  that  the  poet  fails  to  produce  the  proper  pleasure,  to  that 
degree  does  he  fail  in  the  accomphshment  of  his  artistic  purpose. 

■  For  a  disctusioD  of  tbeae  queations,  see  my  article  in  tbe  Romanic  Reiitw,  XII,  1,. 
March,  1021. 


2  Ralph  C.  Williams 

To  Plato,  considering  tiic  influence  of  poetry  in  tlic  formation  of 
character,  iileasuro  was  a  word  of  base  association.  He  saw,  for 
instance,  in  the  stories  of  tlie  gods  only  reprehensible,  immoral 
fictions,  which  were  harmful  in  (heir  efTects  on  the  readers.  Aris- 
totle, answering  this  contention,  maintained  that  inasmuch  as  these 
had  become  traditional,  they  should  be  allowed  their  place  in  poetry. 
It  should  not  be  believed  that,  as  a  consequence  of  this  idea,  Aris- 
totle was  indilTcrcnt  to  the  moral  content  of  a  poem.  On  the  con- 
trary', he  stated  clearly  that  the  characters  should  be  good,  but  wc 
can  be  sure  that  their  goodness  was  not  to  serve  as  an  example:  he 
advocated  that  they  be  good  because  he  realized  that  the  desired 
pleasure  could  not  be  derived  from  a  jwem  which  iiolds  up  low  iileals 
of  life  and  conduct.  One  is  justified  in  concluding  that  Aristotle 
advocated  that  the  personages  in  the  c|)ic  be  depicted  a.s  of  noble 
cliaiacter  not  primarily  from  any  idea  of  didactic  purpose  in  their 
portrayal  as  such,  but  in  conformity  with  the  unquestioned  assum])- 
tion  of  his  time  that  the  chief  distinction  between  the  higher  and 
the  lower  forms  of  art  depended  on  tiie  dilTcrcnt  types  of  moral 
character  represented  by  them.  Accordingly,  the  epic,  being  one 
of  the  higher  forms,  would  naturally  require  that  the  characters  be 
of  a  lofty  type  of  moral  goodness.  The  didactic  point  of  view  is 
abandoned;  he  does  not  mention  the  ethical  influence  on  the  spec- 
tator, or  the  moral  intention  of  the  poet.  I  In  a  word,  the  question 
of  morality  enters  into  consideration,  for  Aristotle,  only  as  implied 
in  the  aesthetic  ideal. ^  This  conception  of  Aristotle  was  not  per- 
ceived by  the  sixteenth-century  critics.  Those  who  considered  the 
question  of  nobility  of  character  were  of  the  opinion  that  if  the 
heroic  poem  contained  good  men,  it  was  that  the  goodness  should 
furnish  worthy  examples  for  emulation,  and  therefore  they  thought 
they  discerned  an  implied  tendency  toward  a  diilactic  purpo.se.' 

The  ideas  of  the  critical  writers  of  the  sixteenth  century  in  Italy 
on  th(!  question  of  unity  in  the  epic  have  never  been  tabulated, 
although  the  dramatic  unities,  first  i)romulgatcd  by  these  writers, 
have  been  discussed  at  length.  It  is  tiie  purpose  of  this  article  to 
give,  in  chronological  order,  the  various  theories  on  the  subject  of 

'  For  a  inorp  dolallo<l  dLsruiision  of  this  question,  w>o  my  nrlicio  rntitU^I  "Tlio  Purpoao 
of  Poetry  aa  DisciisHod  by  bixl«ontU-Ooulury  Orllica  In  Italy,"  Homanxe  Arii<i>, 
XII.  I.Moi-cti.  lu:.!!. 


El'ic  Unity  ix  Sixtkkntii-Ckntuuy  Italy  3 

epic  unity  propounded  by  the  critical  writers  in  tlic  iuilf-century 
from  Vida  (1527)  to  Ca.stclvotro  (1570),  a  period  in  wliicli  tlic  ques- 
tion was  variously  treated  until  it  reached  in  Castclvctro  its  final 
development  in  the  idea  of  the  three  luiities. 

Inasmuch  as  in  such  an  investit;ation  one  cannot  for  a  moment 
lose  sifjht  of  Aristotle's  dictum  on  this  question  of  unity,  it  would 
seem  advantaReous  to  call  to  mind  what  he  has  to  say.  At  the  out- 
set it  should  be  understood  that  the  unities  are  deduced  primarily 
from  the  practice  of  tragedy  and  were  applied  only  secondarily  to 
tlie  epic.  This  is  particularlj'  true  of  what  little  is  said  regarding 
the  unities  of  time  and  place  in  the  epic,  but  Aristotle  discusses  the 
whole  subject  of  unity  chiefly  with  regard  to  tragedy,  and  much  of 
what  his  followers  have  repeated  is  written  with  an  eye  to  the 
example  of  tragic  unity. 

In  the  Poetics,  the  question  of  unity  receives  a  longer  treatment 
than  many  of  the  other  points  discus.sed.  By  the  rule  of  beauty  a 
poetic  creation  mu.st  have  at  the  same  time  unity  and  i)lurality.  If 
it  is  too  small  the  whole  is  perceived  but  not  the  parts;  if  too  large 
the  parts  are  perceived  but  not  the  whole.  On  this  principle  a 
whole  such  as  the  Trojan  War  is  too  vast  in  its  compass  even  for 
epic  treatment;  it  cannot  be  grasped  by  the  mind  and  incurs  the 
risk  of  becoming  a  series  of  detached  incidents.  The  Platonic  idea 
of  an  organism  evidently  underlies  Aristotle's  rules  concerning 
unity.  It  is  especially  evident  in  one  pa.ssage:  "The  construction 
of  its  stories  should  be  like  that  in  a  drama;  they  should  be  based 
on  a  single  action,  one  that  is  a  comjilcte  whole  in  itself,  with  a 
beginning,  middle,  and  end,  so  as  to  enable  the  work  to  produce  its 
own  proper  pleasure,  with  all  the  organic  unity  of  a  living  creature."' 

The  unity  of  a  plot  does  not  consist  in  having  one  man  as  its 
subject;  an  infinity  of  things  befalls  that  one  man,  some  of  which 
cannot  be  reduced  to  unity,  and  there  are  many  actions  of  one  man 
wliich  cannot  be  made  to  fonn  one  action.  Homer,  in  writing  the 
Odyssey,  did  not  make  the  poem  cover  all  that  befell  his  hero,  but 
he  represented  one  action  with  its  several  incidents  so  closely  con- 
nected that  the  transposal  or  withdrawal  of  any  one  of  them  would 
have  interfered  with  the  continuity  of  the  whole.     The  epic,  being 

'I.  Bywatcr.  AriilolU  on  Iht  Arl  o/  Pottry,  Oxford.  1009,  p.  71. 


4  Ralph  C.  Williams 

in  narr.itivc  form,  may  (Icscribo  a  niimbpr  of  simultaneous  incidents, 
and  these,  if  germane  to  the  subject,  increase  iiie  body  of  the  poem 
witliout  dostroyinR  its  unity.  The  peneral  law  of  unity  laid  down 
in  till!  Porlicn  for  an  epic  poem  is  almost  the  same  as  for  traKcdy, 
but  the  ejiic,  bein£  of  wider  compass,  can  admit  many  episodes 
which  serve  to  fill  in  the  pauses  of  the  action,  or  to  diversify  the 
interest,  or  to  embellish  the  narrative.  The  introduction  of  episodes, 
however,  conduces  to  the  result  that  there  is  le.ss  unity  in  the  imita- 
tion of  epic  poets,  inasmuch  as  from  one  epic  many  tragic  plots  may 
be  derived.  It  is  an  evifient  fact,  however,  that  if  a  single  story 
were  treated  it  would  seem  curt  when  briefly  told,  and  thin  and 
extenuated  when  prolonged  to  the  usual  epic  length.  On  this  point 
Professor  Bywater  tran.slatcs  Ari.stotlc  as  follows:  "In  saying  that 
there  is  less  miity  in  an  epic,  I  mean  an  epic  made  up  of  a  ]ilurality 
of  actions,  in  the  same  way  as  the  Iliad  and  Odyssey  have  such 
parts,  each  one  of  them  in  itself  of  some  magnitude;  yet  the  structure 
of  the  two  Homeric  poems  is  as  perfect  as  can  be,  and  the  action  in 
them  as  nearly  as  po.ssible  one  action."' 

In  some  inferior  epics,  although  there  is  a  certain  unity  in  the 
story,  it  is  not  of  the  right  kind,  as  the  action  consists  of  a  plurality 
of  parts,  each  of  them  easily  detached  from  the  rest  of  the  work. 
Several  tragedies  may  be  made  from  a  single  epic  of  this  type, 
whereas  the  Iliad  or  the  Odyssey  docs  not  supply  materials  for  more 
than  one  or  two.  This  emphatic  a.ssertion  of  the  unity  of  action  in 
the  Homeric  epic  is  not  quite  in  harmony  with  statements  made 
elsewhere  in  the  Poclics.  The  story  of  the  Iliad,  for  instance,  is 
said  to  contain  a  plurality  of  actions.*  This  plurality  of  action  is 
not,  one  can  feel  assured,  condoned  by  Aristotle;  on  the  contrary, 
to  the  extent  that  there  is  a  plurality  of  action,  to  that  same  extent 
are  the  poems  of  Homer  comparable  to  the  "inferior  epics." 

'  Cf.  Bywater,  oj>.  cil.,  p.  !)I. 

'"Ono  HhniiUl  also  romcinhor  what  ha-s  hetni  R.aiil  moro  than  once,  and  not  wrilo  a 
traKfXly  un  an  opic  body  of  Inoldont  (i.e.,  with  a  pUir,'\Uty  of  Nlorit'-s  in  It)  by  attempting 
to  iiraniati7,o,  for  InKt.inco,  llio  (intirn  IxMiy  of  llio  /iim/"  (Ilywati-r.  rliap.  xviii,  p.  r>:t); 
and  afraln  (c)mi>.  xxvi):  "Wo  mxist  ronicniijor  tliat  tlioro  in  U'.s.s  unity  in  tlio  iiniUition  of 
opic  poKtH,  OH ia  proved  l)y  the  fact  tliat  any  one  worl<  of  tlicirH  supiiiioH  inatlor  for  Noviral 
traKo<ii<'5.  In  H,ayinK  tlial  thore  ix  iivvi  unity  In  un  o|>ic,  I  niran  an  o|>ic  niado  up  of  a 
plurality  of  octionH,  in  the  sjinio  way  o.^  tlio  Itiad  and  Odiimev  have  many  such  porta, 
oacb  ono  of  tlioui  in  lt«oif  of  some  moKnituUe"  (Uywator,  p.  Ul). 


Eric  Unitv  IN'  SixrioKNTii-CKNTuuy  Italy  5 

Homer  did  not  attoinpt  to  treat  tlie  Trojan  War  in  its  entirety 
— tlionjih  it  was  a  whole  willi  a  definite  be^inninn  and  end — through 
a  feolinp  apparently  that  it  was  too  long  a  story  to  be  grasped  in 
one  view,  or,  if  not  that,  too  eoniplicated  from  the  variety  of  inei- 
dcnt.  As  it  is,  he  has  seleetcd  one  section  of  tlic  whole,  bringing 
in  many  other  matters  as  episodes,  as,  for  example,  the  catalogue 
of  the  ships. 

The  onl.v  unity  enjoined  by  Aristotle  for  the  epic  is  the  unity 
of  action  which  we  have  just  discussed.  As  cverj'one  knows,  the 
doctrine  of  the  unity  of  time  is  based  on  one  pa.ssagc  in  the  Poetics 
where  Aristotle  states  that  the  epic  is  of  greater  length  than  tragedy, 
"which  is  due  to  its  having  no  fixed  limit  of  time,  whereas  tragedy 
endeavors  to  keep  as  far  as  possible  witliin  a  single  circuit  of  the 
sun."''  As  to  the  length  of  the  epic,  it  must  be  po.ssiblc  for  the 
beginning  and  the  end  of  the  work  to  be  comprehended  in  one  view, 
a  condition  which  will  be  fulfilled  if  the  poem  is  shorter  than  the 
old  epics,  and  about  as  long  as  the  series  of  tragedies  offered  for 
one  hearing.  Aristotle  is  here  speaking  merely  of  the  material 
length  of  the  epic,  and  not  of  any  unity  of  time.  He  is  referring  to 
the  real  length  of  the  work  itself,  a  length  measured  by  the  number 
of  lines  a  poem  would  take  up  in  a  book,  or  the  number  of  hours 
required  for  recitation.  Aristotle  never  loses  sight  of  the  obvious 
fact  that  the  epic  (the  Iliad,  for  instance)  extends  its  length  to 
several  thousand  lines,  whereas  a  tragedy  rarely  exceeds  some 
sixteen  hundred  lines.  This  tliffcrencc  in  Icngtii  between  the  epic 
and  the  tragedy  is,  for  Aristotle,  the  natural  consequence  of  another 
kind  of  difference,  i.e.,  the  fact  that  the  action  in  a  Greek  tragedy 
is  as  a  rule  kept  within  a  limit  of  some  twenty-four  hours,  whereas 
that  of  the  epic  may  extend  over  weeks,  months,  or  years. 

With  lh\A  tlilTercnce,  tlicreforo,  in  the  extent  of  tlio  action,  in  tho 
quantum  of  matter  to  Ije  included  in  the  story,  it  is  only  natural  that 
there  should  be  a  corresponding  difference  in  the  length  of  the  e.xter- 
nal  form  in  the  two  cases.  Assuming  this  correspondence,  Aristotle 
exT^lains  the  great  length  of  an  epic  compared  with  a  tragedy,  as 
due  to  the  length  of  time  over  which  the  epic  action  extends.  In 
other  words,  he  passes  from  the  idea  of  the  actual  length,  the  actual 

•  Ibid.,  p.  16. 


G  Halpii  C.  Wilmams 

time  icqviirod  for  (lie  iccHalion,  to  tliaL  of  (lin  iniajiiiiury  time 
covered  by  the  aetioii  of  the  jioem,  .ippareiitly  witli  llif  tacit  jussiimp- 
t.ioii  tlmt  llio  two  tliiiif^s  .ire  so  closely  coimccted  that  the  one  may 
serve  to  exi>laiii  the  other.  It  would  Im^  al)sohitily  wroiip;  to  deduc(% 
however,  that  Aristotle  is  anywhere  making  the  time  of  the  actual 
recitation  of  the  epic  coincide  with  the  time  of  presentation  of  a 
series  of  tragedies  acted  in  a  single  d.ay.  The  epic,  then,  must  he 
a  wliolc,  but  not  too  long  a  whole.  This  condition  will  be  fulfilled 
if  the  epic  is  about  the  length  of  a  trilogy,  and  thus  considerably 
shorter  than  the  Iliad  and  the  Odijsscrj.  He  evidently  thinks  that 
an  epic  on  the  old  Homeric  scale  of  length  woidd  i)rovc  too  great  a 
strain  on  the  memory  and  attention  of  the  literary  public  of  hi.9 
own  time. 

The  discussion  of  unity  may  be  divided  into  two  main  topics: 
the  fundamental  and  basic  idea  that  the  i^lot  should  deal  with  one 
action — an  Aristotelian  precept  which  is  generally  denominated  the 
"unity  of  action";  and,  secondly,  the  so-called  unity  of  time, 
derived  by  critics  from  the  first,  and  bearing  such  an  intimate  rela- 
tion to  it  that  at  times  it  becomes  impossible  to  .sejiarate  the  two, 
although  in  this  article  an  effort  will  be  made  to  consider  them  singly. 
As  a  subdivision  of  the  unity  of  action  the  question  of  the  intro- 
duction of  episodes  will  be  treated.  The  word  "ejiisode"  is  used 
by  the  sixteenth-century  critics  in  its  literal  meaning,  that  is,  a 
"coming  in  besides,"  a  digression  or  incident  outside  the  plot  or 
main  action  (generally  called  the  favola)  but  related  to  it,  and 
forming  with  the  plot  the  whole  narration  or  storJ^ 

Trissino,  in  treating  the  question  of  the  unity  of  action,  inter- 
prets Aristotle  more  broadly  than  many  sixteenth-century  critics. 
Although  in  his  dedication  to  Charles  V  preceding  the  Italia  liberaia 
Tri.ssino  .says  that  he  intends  to  treat  one  and  only  one  of  the  many 
actions  of  Justinian,  he  adds  that  he  purposes  to  commence  at  the 
beginning  of  the  war  and  finish  at  the  end,  or,  *in  other  words,  he 
considers  the  entire  war  as  a  unit,  the  treatment  of  which,  he  thinks, 
ftnds  complete  justification  in  Aristotelian  rules.  It  will  be  remem- 
bered, however,  that  Aristotle  commends  Honier  for  not  attempting 
to  deal  with  the  Trojan  War  in  its  entirety,  and  adds  that  Homer 
had  refrained  from  so  doing  thro\igh  a  feeling,  apparently,  that  the 


Epic  Unity  in  Sixtkenth-Ckntuuy  Italy  7 

storj'  was  of  too  groat  loiiKth  to  he  K>"iispcd  in  one  view.  Trissino, 
although  fully  aware  of  Aristotle's  dietnni  on  this  suhjeet,'  inter- 
prets this  in  such  a  way  as  to  justify  the  st^loction  of  an  entire  war, 
provided  that,  by  so  doiii}?,  the  poem  still  remain  of  ordinary  length 
and  be  not  too  complicated  bj'  variety  of  incident,  and  provided 
that  the  bcf;innin{;  and  the  end  can  still  be  {^rasped  in  one  view. 
The  words  of  Aristotle  seem,  however,  to  be  capable  of  the  sinple 
inference  that  he  considered  any  war  as  a  subject  too  vast  for  a 
single  poem. 

Roborlelli,  in  his  coinnicntaiy  on  Aristotle,  repeats  the  latter's 
doctrine  regarding  the  organism  by  saying  that  the  epic  embraces 
a  single,  perfect,  and  complete  action,  and  that,  if  it  be  complete 
in  cveiy  part  like  some  animal,  it  is  beautiful  and  affords  pleasure. 
If  an  author  constitutes  n^my  actions  in  the  epic,  he  departs  from 
its  proper  art,  for  it  ought  to  be  a  single,  simple  action.'  In  apparent 
opjiosition  to  the  latter  statement,  he  asserts  that  a  tragic  action 
ought  to  be  simple,  but  that  the  epic  makes  the  nature  of  its  action 
com])licated.'  lie  undoubtedly  has  in  mind,  however,  the  intro- 
duction of  episodes  and  not  any  complexity  of  the  plot  i)roper,  for 
he  maintains^  that  the  epic,  which  is  legitimately  increased  i)y 
cpisotles,  is  longer  than  tragedy  because  it  includes  more  c|)isodes. 
He  seems  to  use  tiic  word  actio  in  the  sei»sc  that  Minturno  employs 
the  word  narralio  or  story,  as  is  more  evident  in  the  following  passage: 
"In  the  ej)ic  many  i)arts  of  the  action  are  coini)lcted  at  the  same 
time;  episodes  arc  i)arts  of  the  action,  and  eacli  one  has  a  perfect 
and  comj)Ietc  action  in  itself,"*  yet  the  epic  as  a  whole  seems  to  be  a 
single  action.  Some,  ignorant  of  the  reason  {ralioncin)  and  tiie  art 
(artificiiim)  of  (he  heroic  jioem,  iiave  followed  all  the  deeds  of  one 
man  which  were  either  accomplished  at  one  time  or  in  the  space  of 
many  years.  The  action  in  such  a  poem  is  not  one  but  becomes 
manifold  {7iiuUipUccin)  and  diverse.*  Such  a  poem  is  not  to  be  con- 
demned from  the  point  of  view  of  length  of  time,  because,  in  his 

«  Trlsaino,  "Do  aru>  pootlca."  la  Tuttt  U  opert,  Vorona,  1720,  p.  113. 
>  RobortolU,    In  liiirum    Ariiloltlit   dt    arlt   potlica   <zplicationti,   FlorODlluo,    1048, 
p.  320. 

•  Jl/id.,  p.  210.  '/Md.,  p.  320. 

' /6i<J.,  p.  200.  '  Ibid.,  p.  271. 


8  IvAi.pii  C.  Williams 

oi)iiiioii,  ill  its  imilatioii  the  epic  may  legitimately  einhraee  matters 
eoverinp  not  only  a  day  and  iiiulii  hut  many  (lays,  months,  and 
years — a  veiy  llexil)le  and  elastic  freedom  wiien  compared  to  the 
limils  imposed  by  later  critics,  such  as  Mintiirno;  it  would  he 
condemned  only  a.s  offending  the  unity  of  action,  the  only  unity 
Kohortelli  recognizes. 

Bernardo  Segni  maintains  that  the  plot  is  one  and  perfect  when 
it  relates  a  single  action.'  In  this  way  it  can  be  said  that  the  Iliad, 
the  Odyssey,  and  the  Acnrid  arc  a  single  action.  "Let  it  not  dis- 
turb us  if  in  tlurse  jjoems  many  matters  arc  found,  because  such 
things  arc  episodes."  But  the  action  of  each  of  these  poems  is  a 
single  action,  he  repeats.  The  episodes  treat  of  things  outside  the 
action  which  the  poet  purpo.scs  to  imitate,  which,  nevertheless,  arc 
not  entirely  separate  from  it  but  agree  with  it  in  some  part.  Follow- 
ing the  ideius  of  Robortelli  ("Rubertello,"  as  he  calls  him),  he  makes 
the  statement  that  the  heroic  poem  imitates  an  action  lasting  several 
years. 

In  the  work  of  Giraldi  Cinthio  defending  the  romanzi  we  find  a 
far  different  iilea  concerning  unity  from  that  which  wc  have  met 
heretofore.  The  writer  of  the  romanzi  chooses  a  subject  not  of  one 
action  of  one  man  but  of  "one  or  more  illustrious  actions  of  one  or 
more  excellent  men."'  Ario.sto  and  Boiardo,  he  believes,  have  ful- 
filled these  conditions.  The  subject-matter  of  the  romanzi  is  dilTer- 
cnt  from  the  works  of  Virgil  and  Homer  because  both  of  these  have 
undertaken  to  imitate  a  single  action  of  a  single  man,  whereas 
Ariosto  and  Boiardo  have  imitated  many  actions  not  only  of  one 
man  but  of  many.'  "And  although  it  appears  that  Aristotle  blames 
in  his  Poetics  those  who  wrote  a  Thcscid  or  a  Heracleid,  he  does  not 
condemn  theiu  (if  his  words  are  well  considered)  on  account  of  the 
composition  or  the  subject,  but  because  it  appeared  to  these  authors 
whom  he  blames  that  in  writing  the  deeds  of  a  single  man  they  were 
making  a  poem  of  a  single  action,  an  opinion  certainly  far  from  true, 
and  worthy  of  being  blamed."* 


>  RcUorica  tl  Poiliea  d'  AritlotiU  IradolU  diGrtco  in  linQua  tulgart  FioT$nliita.  Firenze, 
1640.  p.  300. 

"  G.  Giruldl  Cinlliio,  Diicorti,  Vinogla,  1654,  p.  8. 
'Ibid.,  p.  11.  '/tid..  p.  14. 


\ 


■«w 


Eric  Unity  in  Sixtkicni'ii-Cicntuhy  Italy  9 

"All  the  poc'tic  c'Oiii])osil.ioiis  wliivli  contiiin  deeds  of  heroes  arc 
not  resi  rioted  within  the  bounds  which  Aristotle  has  imposed  upon 
the  poets  who  write  poems  of  a  single  action."'  Ciraltli  contends 
that  it  is  better  to  follow  many  actions  than  a  single  action,  because 
it  seems  that  this  method  is  more  adapted  to  the  composition  in 
the  form  of  roinanzi,  for  this  diversity  of  action  carries  with  it  a 
variety  which  is  delightful,  and  furnishes  ample  opportunitj'  for  the 
introduction  of  episodes  or  pleasing  digressions  and  events  which 
could  never  fittingly  happen  in  that  manner  of  poetry  which  describes 
a  single  action.-  Despite  this  greater  freedom  in  choice  of  subject, 
he  cautions  the  poet  to  keep  in  mind  the  harmonious  arrangement 
of  the  matter.  "And  this  disposition  ought  not  to  be  alone  con- 
sidered in  the  ]irinciiial  jiarts,  which  are  beginning,  middle,  and 
end,  but  in  every  smaller  section  of  these  parts. "^  lie  adopts  as 
an  excellent  simile  that  of  the  body,  comparing  it  to  a  composition, 
as  follows:  "Just  as  a  man's  body  is  made  of  bones,  nerves,  flesh, 
and  skin,  so  the  compositions  of  good  poets,  who  write  romnnzi, 
ought  to  have  parts  in  the  body  of  the  poem  which  correspond  to 
the  parts  of  the  human  body."*  The  sections  should  be  joined  to 
each  other  like  part.s  of  the  body,  though  in  a  manner  difTerent 
from  that  of  Homer  and  Virgil. 

The  writers  of  romanzi,  having  taken  the  actions  of  many  from 
the  beginning,  have  not  been  able  to  continue  one  matter  from 
canto  to  canto,  on  account  of  the  fact  that  all  of  them  are  intimately 
connected.  But  it  has  been  necessaiy  for  them,  after  .speaking  of 
one  of  their  characters,  to  pass  to  another,  breaking  ofT  the  narration 
of  the  first  and  entering  into  the  deeds  of  the  other,  and  with  this 
order  to  continue  until  the  end,  "a  thing  which  they  have  done 
with  marvelous  art."'  An  especially  interesting  pas.sage  shows 
Giraldi's  ideas  regarding  the  nature  of  the  episodes  that  may  be 
treated.  "There  can  be  introduced  into  the  compo.sitions,"  he  says, 
"loves,  unexpected  events,  wrongs,  vices,  olifenses,  defences,  deceits;, 
deeds  of  courtesy,  justice,  liberality,  virtue,  treachery,  faith,  loj^alty, 
etc.,  and  such  other  episodes;  and  there  can  be  introduced  such 
variety  and  delight  that  the  poem  will  become  most  pleasing."' 

■  Ibid.,  p.  22.  >  Ibid.,  p.  25.  •  Ibid.,  p.  26.  <  Ibid.,  p.  10. 

• /bid,  p.  41.  • /61U,  p.  43. 


10  IJalimi  ('.  Wri.i.iAMS 

GiraKli  docs  not  Ijcliovo  tli;it  the  .story  of  a  wliolo  life  would  l)e 
a  poor  coinnosifion  or  laoking  in  pleasure  or  utility.  "For  we  will- 
ingly read  in  prose  the  life  of  Tliennstoeles,  Coriolanws,  or  Honnihis, 
and  of  other  excellent  men;  why  ou^ht  it  to  be  less  pleasiuK  and 
less  profitable  to  read  it  composed  in  verse  by  a  noble  and  wise 
poet?  For  he  knows  how  the  lives  of  heroes  ought  to  be  written 
in  verse  for  an  exam])]e  to  the  world,  like  history."'  As  the  Italian 
has  its  own  forms  of  poetry  dilTerent  from  tiiose  of  other  tongues 
and  other  coimtries,  the  Tuscan  poet  ought  not  to  be  confined  by 
the  limits  within  which  the  Greeks  and  the  Latins  were  constrained 
but  ought  to  proceed  along  the  paths  which  the  best  Italian  poets 
have  indicated,  with  the  same  authority  which  the  Greeks  and 
Latins  had  in  their  language.  "And  this  is  the  reason  that  I  have 
many  times  smiled  at  those  who  have  wished  to  place  the  writers  of 
romanzi  under  the  laws  of  art  given  by  jVristotle  and  Horace,  not 
considering  the  fact  that  neither  one  nor  the  other  knew  this  tongue, 
nor  this  manner  of  composing."'  Giraldi,  nevertheless,  docs  not 
lightly  cast  aside  the  precepts  of  the  ancients.  "I  do  not  say  this, 
however,  because  I  blame  the  precepts  which  are  necessary  to  good 
composition,  as  are  those  which  Aristotle,  Cicero,  and  the  other 
ancients  gave."' 

J'igna's  ideas  are  somewhat  similar  to  those  of  Giraldi,  although 
it  is  interesting  to  see  that  there  arc  difTcrences  between  the  two 
which  one  would  not  expect  to  find,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Pigna 
bewails  loudly  the  appropriation  of  his  ideas  by  his  teacher.  Pigiia, 
too,  contends  that  romanzi  arc  different  from  tiie  older  epic,  cliicfiy 
on  account  of  the  fact  that  where  the  Greek  and  Latin  poets  speak 
continuously  the  Italians  interrupt  the  course  of  their  poems  from 
time  to  time.*  He,  too,  although  with  less  elaborateness,  considers' 
the  epic  like  an  animal  compo.scd  of  substance  and  extraneous  things 
(acddenli),  the  accidcnli  being  tlio  episodes  which  arc  digressions 
placed  outside  the  princijial  action.'  As  in  a  good  composition  the 
members  will  be  proportionate,  so  in  a  poor  one  they  will  be  pro- 
longed where  it  is  unnecessary.'     He  recognizes,  however,  that  the 

>  G.  Giraldi  Cinthio,  Ducorti.  Vinegia.  1554,  p.  20. 

•  Ibiil.,  p.  45.  >  Ibid.,  p.  75. 

•  O.  BattistA  Pigna.  /  Romanii.  Vlnogla,  1554,  p.  14. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  15.  •  Ibid.,  p.  42.  '  Ibid.,  p.  0. 


Eric  Unity  in  SiXTKr-NTii-CENTunv  Italy  1 1 

I'pif  aotion  is  ossonlially  ono  action  of  one  pcr.soii.'  Ho  diffcr.s  from 
Ginildi  in  saying  that,  allliou^^li  tlio  roiiianzi  are  ailapUMl  to  depict 
many  deeds  of  nianj'  nion,  tlicy  devote  themselves  especially  to 
one  man  who  is  oolebraled  above  all  the  others,  and  thus  they  agree 
with  the  ei)ics  in  tlepictiiif;  a  single  person.  But  this  is  not  the  ca-se, 
he  adds,  when  it  is  a  question  of  takiiif!;  a  single  fact,  because  the 
writers  of  romanzi  treat  as  many  actions  as  they  deem  suitable,  nor 
do  the  romanzi  agree  with  the  epics  in  making  one  action  supreme 
and  the  others  subordinate.'  Furthermore,  Pigna,  in  direct  opposi- 
tion to  the  statement  of  Giraldi  Cinthio,  a.sserts  that  Aristotle  has 
been  the  guide  in  romanzi,  although  he  did  not  speak  of  them.* 
He  contends  also  that  Ariosto  followed  classic  models.  "And 
although  the  love  of  Angelica  could  have  been  treated  differently, 
nevertheless  it  was  related  in  this  manner  following  the  example  of 
the  Iliad."*  "And  to  show  that  he  has  followed  the  Greek  and 
Latin  poets  equally,  he  took  care  to  begin  his  poem  with  the  lines  of 
the  Iliad  and  to  conclude  it  according  to  the  form  of  the  Aeneid."^ 

Bernardo  Tasso,  writing  to  Benedetto  Varchi  under  date  of 
March  6,  1559,*  reduces  the  whole  question  to  the  consideration  of 
the  effect  produced.  "If  Aristotle  were  born  in  this  age  and  should 
see  the  most  pleasing  poem  of  Ariosto's,  knowing  the  force  of  custom 
and  realizing  that  it  furnishes  so  much  delight,  I  do  not  luiow  whether 
he  would  change  his  opinion  and  consent  that  a  heroic  poem  could 
be  made  of  many  actions,  giving  it  new  rules  and  prescribing  for  it 
new  laws  with  his  wonderful  learning  and  judgment." 

Capriano,  disagreeing  with  Aristotle  when  he  gives  precedence 
to  tragedy,  declares  that  the  fact  that  the  epic  includes  an  action 
of  many  years  does  not  cause  it  to  have  less  unity  i)r  to  be  less 
pleasing.^ 

Minturno,  in  the  De  Poela,  repeats  the  Aristotelian  precept  that 
the  epic  plot  should  be  one,  complete,  and  perfect,  and  that  the 

■  Ibtd..  p.  25.  '  Ibid. 

'  Ibid.,  p.  05.  "Et  comoin  tutto  II  Duello  uon  mal  da  lui  veduto,  lume  ne  dlede 
easo  Arlstotele,  cosl  qulvi  ne  Itomanzl  6  state  la  nostra  guida,  beuclid  egU  mal  non  no 
parUsse." 

<  Ibid.,  p.  78.  '  Ibid.,  p.  80. 

•  Cf.  Porcacclli.  Letltre  di  XIII  huomini  iUuttrij,  Veoetla,  lfi76,  pp.  444  B. 

'  Caprtano.  DtUa  itra  poetica,  Vlaegia,  1656,  chap.  Ir. 


12  Uai.i'h  C.  Wiluams 

tclli  ami  Ciii-iilili,  lie  iisrs  tlic  illiistnition  of  llm  OTOUiisin.     "Is  not 
(ho  huinaii  liody  foiiiplcic  ;»ii(l  ono?     I'.iit  ils  jKirts  :iro  liciid,  arms, 
haiiils,  lops,  hihI  foot,  wliioli  hy  Uioinsclvos  ;iro  oomi)lo1o.  .•iii.l  oiii-."' 
Tlioroforo  when  .-i  lioroio  poom  is  oooupiod  with  oiio  actifui  I  ho  plot 
will  l)o  ono;   :ii»«l,  lioraiiso  it  will  ho  ]irolraolo(l  to  a  trroat  loimth,  it  is 
customary  for  s\ich  a  poom  lo  oinhraoo  ovonts  from  which  many 
liramatio  plots  ran   ho  formed.     Althoiitih   the  licroie   narrative  is 
]>orn\ittod  to  include  many  thin|;s,  it  oupht  not,  however,  to  he  so 
pn)lon(;ed  that  it  seems  overhurdened,  nor  of  such  length  that  it 
cannot    he    eompletoly    Rrasped.'     Minturno    does    not    share    the 
opinion  of  such  writers  as  Sojiiii,  Madius,  and  Capriano.     Although 
deolarinR  that  the  plot  will  be  one  if  the  action  is  one,  he  continues 
Baying  that  if  a  writer  observe  the  poems  of  the  ancients  he  will 
discover  that  epic  actions  are  perfect  if  within  the  period  of  one  year/ 
Vcttori  contends  that  Aristotle  teaches  that  one  epic  can  be 
rightly  prolonged  to  the  same  time  limit  that  is  required  for  the 
representation  of  a  number  of  tragedies,  "so  that  if  the  spectators 
remain  in  the  theatre  for  the  space  of  eight  hours  paying  attention 
to  many  tragedies  which  arc  portrayed,  to  that  same  space  of  time 
the  epic  may  be  prolonged,  for  it  may  be  supposed  that  men  would 
hear  with  pleasure  an  epic  poem  recited  for  the  same  number  of 
hours.'"    He  admonishes  epic  writers,  therefore,  that  they  should 
not  give  the  epic  a  larger  body  than  would  be  that  of  all  those 
tragedies  which  are  produced  in  one  day,  for  although  epic  poems 
were  not  recited  in  the  theater  in  the  same  manner  as  tragedy,  yet, 
if  they  were  read  aloud,  the  recitation  or  reading  of  the  epic  poem 
would  consume  the  same  amount  of  time  as  that  occupied  in  the 
action  of  the  tragic  plot,  an  idea  which  was  later  attacked  by  Castel- 
vetro.     Vettori  observes  that  when  Aristotle  asserts  that  the  epic 
is  extended  to  its  proper  length  by  means  of  episodes,  he  means 
that  without  episodes  the  epic  would  be  insignificant,  or,  in  other 
words,  he  wishes  to  signify  that  the  length  which  is  perceived  in 

•  Dt  Poila.  VonoUld,  1680,  p.  147. 

»  Ibid.,  p.  152.  •  im.  '  ^l'"'-  P-  '3''- 

»  P.  VlcCbrius  (Vcltorl),  Commentarii  in  primum   librum  Aritlottlii  dt  ar(e  paclarum. 
FloroQtlae,  l&OO,  p.  260. 


Epic  Unity  in  Sixteenth-Century  Italy  13 

every  epic  work  is  contributed  by  the  episodes  and  is  not  part  of  the 
argument;  "for  some  ignorant  person  who  could  not  distinguish 
episodes  from  the  argument  of  llie  poem  thouglit  that  this  prolixity 
arose  from  the  argument."'  Vettori  is  merely  corroborating  the 
assertions  of  Scgni,  Giraldi,  and  others  regarding  the  true  nature 
antl  use  of  the  episodes. 

Scaliger  seems  to  lay  himself  ojion  to  the  criticism  of  Vottori  as 
being  one  of  the  imperili  who  fail  to  distinguish  episodes  from  the 
argument  where  he  says  that,  inasmucli  as  several  plots  can  be 
extracted  from  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey,  they  cease  to  be  a  com- 
plete organism  with  one  plot.  "Finally  Aristotle  laughs  at  those 
who  think  that  either  the  Iliad  or  the  Odyssey  is  a  complete  organism 
with  one  plot,  for  he  says  that  one  may  draw  several  plots  from 
either  one,  because  there  are  many  parts  and  many  episodes.  So 
it  was  that  the  ancients  used  to  recite  certain  portions  taken  from 
the  whole  body,  as,  for  instance,  the  battle  and  catalogue  of  the 
shiiis,  the  summoning  of  the  spirits,  those  things  which  happened  on 
Circe's  i-sland,  etc."' 

One  should  certainly  not  be  ovcrhasly  in  condenming  Scaliger  as 
iiupcritus,  but  he  is  unquestionably  open  to  the  criticism  of  failing 
to  state  his  thought  clearly,  and  of  failing  to  define  his  tenns.  When 
Aristotle  says  that  several  plots  can  be  composed  from  the  poems 
of  Homer  he  means  tragic  plots  and  not  v\iu-  plots  (Scaliger  implies 
the  latter  meaning  by  his  use  of  the  word  fabulas)  and  consequently 
Aristotle  does  not  "laugh  at  those  who  think  that  the  Iliad  or  the 
Odyssey  is  a  complete  organisnt  with  one  plot."  It  will  be  recalled 
that  what  Aristotle  really  said  w;is  tiiat  "the  Iliad  and  tlie  Odyssey 
have  many  i)arts,  each  one  of  them  in  itself  of  some  magnitude;  yet 
the  structure  of  the  two  Homeric  jioems  is  as  perfect  as  can  be,  and 
the  action  in  them  as  nearly  as  possible  one  action,"^  and  Aristotle 
rcconnncnds  that  tiiey  be  accepteil  as  models  in  so  far  as  they  arc 
one  organism  with  one  plot.  Scaliger,  however,  recognizes  the  need 
of  unity  wiien  he  subscribes  to  the  Aristotelian  idea  of  the  organism. 
The  author  shoulil  divide  his  book  into  chapters,  "all  so  related  that 
they  constitute  an  organic  body." 

'  J  bid.,  p.  173.  ■  J.  C.  Scaliger,  foclictt,  MDXCIV.  lib.  i,  cap.  Y. 

•  CI.  Ilyuator,  op.  cil.,  p.  Ul. 


14  TJAi.pir  C.  Williams 

Iii.iRinucli  as  Trissiiio's  Arte  podica  i.s  little  more  (liaii  a  para- 
plira.'ic  of  Arisfollr,  wo  find  almost  all  Mm  i)r<'<'q)t.s  of  tlic  Sta^irilc 
rcpoatotl  with  only  sliRlit.  variation.  In  the  fiftli  division,  appear- 
ing in  150.3,  for  insfaneo,'  Trissino  says  that,  care  ninst  Ix'  talccn  in 
fonnin}!  tlic  i)lot,  tliat  it  he  one,  coinijletc,  and  Krcat;  and  tliis  "one" 
docs  not  mean  that  it  includes  all  the  deeds  of  a  single  man,  a  matter 
in  which  many  are  flcecived.  Trissino  gives  as  an  example  of  this 
idea  of  unity  tlic  Decameron  of  Boeeaccio,  thus  interpreting  in  its 
broadest  siRnifieance  the  idea  of  Aristotle  that  the  plot  should  be 
based  on  a  single  action,  so  as  to  enable  the  work  to  produce  its  own 
pleasure.  It  is  not  many  actions  of  one  man,  but  a  unity  resulting 
from  the  eonccrtcfl  action  of  many. 

Mintunio,  in  I'ArU;  poetka,  contends  that  the  romanzi  are  not 
the  poetry  which  Aristotle  and  Horace  taught.'  Tiierc  arc  those, 
he  continues,  who  confess  that  the  romanzi  do  not  conform  to  the 
form  and  rule  whicli  Homer  and  Virgil  followed,  and  yet  obstinately 
defend  this  error,  saying  that  because  such  compositions  treat  of  the 
deeds  of  wandering  knights  they  need  not  conform  to  Aristotelian 
laws  but  require  the  inclusion  of  diverse  matters.  The  heroic  poem 
imitates  one  memorable,  perfect  deed  of  one  illustrious  person;  the 
romanzi  have  for  their  object  the  assembling  of  knights  and  ladies, 
and  the  treatment  of  matters  of  war  and  of  peace.  The  romanzi 
describe  diverse  countries  and  various  things  which  happened  in  all 
the  time  which  the  story  covers.  Homer,  he  agrees,  did  the  same 
thing  to  a  certain  extent,  but  everything  he  described  had  its  origin 
from  one  beginning  and  was  directed  to  one  end.  Tliis  is  not  the 
ca.se  in  the  romanzi}  However,  he  contends  that  Ariosto  could  have 
adhered  to  the  same  law  of  unity  by  treating  the  same  subject- 
matter  in  a  different  way.  If  Ariosto  was  not  content  to  treat  only 
the  affairs  of  lUiggiero  as  the  most  excellent  of  all  knights,  he  should 
have  compo.scd  another  story  devoted  only  to  his  deeds,  just  as 
Homer  had  done,  who  praised  Achilles  in  the  Iliad  and  Ulysses  in 
the  Odyssey.  He  would  not  then  have  pretended  in  the  title  that 
he  was  writing  of  Orlando,  and  then  in  reality  have  described  the 

'  Ct.  Trissino.  Tutte  it  opcrt,  Verona,  1729,  p.  07. 
>  L'arte  potlica,  Napoli,  MDCCXXV,  p.  26. 
'  Ibid.,  p.  27. 


Epic  Unity  in  Sixteenth-Century  Italy  15 

deeds  of  anotlier  as  tlic  iniiiciijal  eliaiaclor,  nor  would  lie  have 
assembled  a  great  mass  of  ))ersoiis  and  tliiiif^s  such  that  a  whole 
poem  would  be  required  to  describe  some  of  them.  Minturno  docs 
not  say  this  to  detract  from  the  worth  of  Ariosto  as  a  poet  but  rather 
to  excuse  him  for  not  knowinp;  better  than  to  follow  the  abuses  of 
the  Tomanzi  to  please  the  many.'  The  writers  of  romanzi  interrupt 
frequcntlj'  the  course  of  the  poem,  going  from  one  part  to  another, 
and  taking  up  the  thread  again  where  they  left  off.  The  intcr- 
.  ruption  of  the  narrative,  contends  Minturno,  interferes  with  the 
enjoyment  of  the  reader;  the  interest  is  aroused  by  many  incidents 
contributing  to  the  same  end. 

As  a  perfect  and  well-formed  animal  causes  delight,  so  is  the  plot 
sufficiently  complete  which  can  cause  pleasure  to  the  minds  of 
others.*  It  is  manifest  that  Virgil  and  Homer  have  undertaken  to 
treat  a  complete  and  perfect  matter  concerning  things  which  hap- 
pened only  within  a  year.  Homer  treats  in  the  Iliad  that  which 
hapjiened  in  the  tenth  year  of  the  Trojan  War;  in  the  Odyssey,  the 
return  of  Ulysses  to  Ithaca.  These  authors  treat  many  things 
which  arc  not  part  of  the  i)lot,  but  parts  o>it.side  of  it;  it  is  necessary, 
liowcvcr,  that  they  be  so  connoctotl  that,  althougli  they  can  be 
separated  from  it  without  detriment  to  it,  nevertheless  they  should 
appear  to  be  derived  from  it  and  to  be  directed  to  the  same  end.* 
"But,  although  it  has  this  prerogative  of  being  able  to  increase  its 
length  so  inucli,  the  subject-matter  of  tlic  plot  cannot  deal  with 
things  which  happened  in  a  longer  space  than  a  year."* 

For  Castclvetro  the  dramatic  vmity  of  action  is  only  a  conse- 
quence of  the  unities  of  time  and  place,  and  hence  subordinate  to 
them;  and  since,  as  we  shall  sec  later,  he  is  not  inclined  to  restrict 
the  epic  as  to  time  and  place,  so  the  Aristotelian  unity  of  action  is 
of  relatively  little  importance  to  him.  He  has,  in  fact,  a  very  broad 
and  inclusive  idea  of  the  unity  of  action  as  applied  to  tlie  epic.  He 
repeats  the  Aristotelian  precept  that  the  plot  should  be  one  and 
contain  a  single  action  of  one  person,  but  he  follows  this  statement 
with  the  assertion  that  the  epic  plot  can  relate  not  only  one  but 
many  actions.'    The  epic,  then,  can  have  a  great  number  of  actions. 

>  Ibid.,  p.  20.  >  /6id.,  p.  11.  •  Ibid.,  p.  13.  •  Ibid.,  p.  2S. 

•  Castelvelro,  Poeiica  d'Aritlofte,  Boailoa,  MDLXXVI,  p.  170. 


IG  Uau'm  C.  Williams 

Tlic  question  to  1)0  dclcrniiiuMl,  ronsociuonlly,  is  tlic  meaning  wliicli 
Ciustclvctro  sivos  to  the  word  "  action."     Is  lie  here  making  "  ad  ion  " 
synonymous  witli  "plot"  as  he  does  elsewhere,'  or  is  he  speaking 
literally  of  the  deeds  of  the  personaRcs  which  will  he  ineliidrd  in  one 
plot,  as  he  does  in  another  passage  ?=    The  latter  interpretation 
seems  to  accord  more  witii  the  {general  statement  of  his  iirinciiiles. 
He  contends,  for  example,  that  there  arc  nuincroijs  ways  of  uniting 
many  difYerent  actions  and  of  making  thorn  heroine  one  action  and 
one  hody,  as  for  instance,  the  method  of  adhering  to  a  limited  time 
or  place,  rciiwting  many  actions  one  hccause  they  hapi^cn  at  the 
same  time  or  in  the  same  place.'    The  mere  fact  that  the  actions 
occur  at  the  same  time,  however,  is  not  sufTicicnt.  for  coincidence  of 
actions  docs  not  necessarily  entail  any  interrelationship  of  events. 
Those  epic  poets  err  who  write  of  actions  which  happened  at  one 
time  to  one  person  or  more,  when  there  is  no  interdependence  in 
the  happenings.''     One  can   l)c  rcasonahly  sure,  then,  that  when 
Castelvctro  joins  the  words  "plot"  and  "action"  he  means  the 
main  action,  just  as  wc  speak  of  it,  and  elsewhere  he  desires  to 
signify  the  deeds  of  the  personages. 

He  repeats  the  idea  already  expressed  hy  RohortcUi,  Giraldi, 
and  Vcttori,  that  hcginmng,  middle,  and  end  can  first  he  considered 
in  a  large  whole,  and  can  then  he  considered  in  some  part  of  that 
whole,  as  if  that  part  were  another  whole  somewhat  smaller.^  The 
Trojan  War,  which  lasted  ten  years,  would  he  considcnul  a  i)crfect  j 
action,  and  the  wrath  of  Achilles,  which  is  a  part  of  the  aforesaid 
war,  considered  hy  itself,  would  be  regarded  as  another  perfect 
action.  The  explanation  of  the  matter  lies  in  the  fact  that  for 
Castelvctro  the  unity  of  action  is  not  the  result  of  any  necessity  hut 
is  merely  the  effect  of  the  desire  on  the  part  of  the  author  to  show 

.  "Ma  ci  clol.bian.o  rlcordarc cbo  non  si  puO  far  traKodia  cho  sla  lodovolo  la 

ouolo  lion  hal.bia  duo  atlioiil.  cid  6.  duo  favolo.  quaiUunquo  Tuna  sla  prlnc  palo  aura 
2^o.°sor"  •  (p.  .m);  a,.<l  again.  "So  lo  cobo  imaginato  sono  pia,  lo  imagim  dcl.bano 
^J  Pia.  0  per  consoguonto  cl.o  la  favola.  la  Qualo  6  imagiao  deirattlono.  sia  uao.  o 
pia,  sccondo  Clio  rattlono  d  uno.  o  piQ." 

.  "Non  ha  dubbio  lUuno.  clio,  so  neir  historia  si  naira  sotu.  un  raccoQtamonW  pia 

atlionl  d-una  persona  sola nolla  po««ia  si  potril  sotu.  una  favola  narraro  son^ 

blaalmo  piQ  attloni  d'una  persona  sola."     Of.  p.  178. 

.  Ibid.,  p.  1»1.  '  /*"'■.  l>-  «>7.  '  /<»<'•.  P-  &11- 


Eric  Unity  in  Sixthentii-Centuky  Italy  17 

proatcr  cxcolloncc'  lie  contcmls  tliat  Iloiiior  did  not  adopt  tlic 
unity  of  action  as  a  result  of  the  restriction  in  time  and  place,  but 
that  tlic  real  reason  for  the  adherence  to  such  a  unity  was  that 
Honior  considered  tlie  sinfiularity  of  action  more  beautiful.'  Ciistcl- 
vctro  declares,  and  with  more  than  mild  disapproval,  that  Aristotle 
can  adduce  no  other  reason  or  proof  than  the  example  of  the  tranicy 
poets  and  of  Ilonicr  for  this  sinRularity  of  action.  Such  examples, 
apparently,  arc  not  convinciii}!;  to  Castolvctro.  What  is  more,  he 
proceeds  to  exjiound  his  theories  of  this  broader  unity  of  action  in 
direct  opposition  to  the  teaching  of  Aristotle.  He  opposes  abso- 
lutely the  views  of  the  Stagirite.  "If  we  believe  the  words  of 
Aristotle" — and  there  is  a  strong  implication  that  Castclvctro  docs 
not — "we  sliould  have  to  l)lamc  Vida  who  composed  the  Crialiade, 
in  whicli  are  related  many  miraculous  actions  of  Christ,  because 
like  those  poets  blamed  by  Aristotle  he  narrated  many  actions  of 
one  person.  And  furthermore  (that  is,  if  we  believe  the  words  of 
Aristotle),  wc  should  not  be  able  to  commend  as  a  well-constructed 
plot  that  of  the  Iliad  of  Homer,  for,  although  it  contains  a  single 
action  (or  rather  a  part  of  an  action,  according  to  Aristotle,  that  is, 
a  part  of  the  Trojan  War)  it  is  not  an  action  of  a  single  person  but 
of  a  people,  because  that  war  was  made  by  common  consent  of  the 
chiefs  of  the  Greeks."  "And  so  much  the  less  should  we  be  able 
to  consider"  (that  is,  if  wc  believe  the  words  of  Aristotle)  as  a  well- 
constructed  plot  that  which  not  only  contains  many  actions  of  one 
person,  or  one  action  of  many  persons,  but  also  many  actions  of 
many  persons."'  All  this  Castclvctro  considers  not  only  possible 
but  proper  to  include  in  tlie  epic  plot.  He  sees  in  the  practice  and 
method  of  historians  the  example  and  justification  of  a  similar  pro- 
cedure by  the  poets,  inasmuch  as  for  him  poetry  is  an  imitation 
of  historj' — rassomiglianza  d'historia.  If  in  history,  he  maintains,* 
one  can  narrate  many  actions  of  a  single  person,  as  Plutarch,  Sue- 
tonius, and  others  have  done,  there  is  no  doubt  that  one  can  narrate 
in  poetrj'  a  single  action  of  a  whole  peoj)le.  After  thus  enlarging 
the  number  of  the  personages  to  include  a  whole  nation  engaged  in 
one  action,  it  is  but  a  step  for  Castclvctro  to  justify  the  inclusion 

•  Ibid.,  pp.  170  and  504.         >  Ibid.,  p.  179.         >  Ibid.,  p.  178.  <  Ibid. 


J 


18  HaLPII    C.    WlLUAMS 

of  the  many  actions  of  a  people  such  as  those  treated  by  Liv>-  and 
other  historians.  And  if  one  concede  as  iiennissible  many  actions 
of  one  people,  it  is  readily  recognized  that  many  actions  of  many 
people  can  be  admitted  into  the  narration  of  the  heroic  poem.' 
Such,  then,  is  the  latitude  with  which  Castelvetro  treats  the  unity 
of  action. 

But  ju.st  as  we  shall  see  in  his  treatment  of  tiic  unities  of  time 
and  place,  Castelvetro  the  radical  becomes  Castelvetro  the  conserva- 
tive by  the  added  assertion  that,  after  all,  the  poet  displays  in  a 
marked  manner  his  jutl^ment  and  industry-  when  he  treats  a  plot 
comprising  but  a  single  action  of  a  single  person  (a  plot,  that  is, 
which  at  first  sight  would  not  appear  capable  of  causing  pleasure  to 
the  hearers)  in  such  a  way  that  he  causes  the  readers  as  much  delight 
as  other  poets  can  scarcely  cause  with  many  actions  of  many  persons.' 
And  although  he  would  permit  unusual  freedom  in  the  unity  of 
action,  his  basic  belief  is  summarized  in  the  words  already  cited: 
"The  epic  ought  to  comprise  one  action  of  one  person,  not  from 
necessity,  but  for  a  demonstration  of  the  excellence  of  the  poet."' 
It  will  be  seen  that  he  admits  into  the  legitimate  domain  of  the 
epic  the  romanzi  of  which  Giraldi,  Pigna,  and  Minturno  had  con- 
stituted a  genre  apart,  although  he  did  not  entirely  countenance  the 
"improper  digressions"  in  the  Orlando  Furioso* 
I  Castelvetro  deduced  the  dramatic  unities  of  time  and  place  from 
I  the  practice  and  the  theorj'  of  the  tragedy,  and  their  application  to 
the  epic  is  of  secondary'  importance  to  him.  Just  as  we  have  seen 
that  he  treats  in  a  broad  way  the  unity  of  action,  so  does  he  assert, 
regarding  the  unity  of  time,  that  the  time  of  the  action  of  the  epic 
is  not  detennined,  becau.sc  the  epic,  narrating  with  words  alone, 
can  relate  an  action  which  happened  during  the  course  of  many 
years  and  in  diverse  places,  since  the  words  may  present  to  our  minds 
things  distant  in  time  and  place.'  The  epic,  then,  not  having  to 
confonn  to  the  restricted  limits  of  time  and  place,  like  tragedy,  can 
relate  an  action  which  happened  in  many  years,  not  in  many  days 
only,  and  in  places  far  distant,  not  in  one  place  only. 

'Cutolvotro.  op.  cit.,  p.  170.  >/6iil.  'Ibid.  '  Ibid.,  i).  220. 

'  Ibid.,  p.  100. 


Epic  Unity  in  Sixtkkntii-Ckntuky  Italy  19 

Castelvctro  docs  not  agree  with  the  coinincntators  such  as 
Vcttori,  who  boHcvc,  first,  that  Aristotle  incatit  that  tlic  rcadiiiR  or 
rcciiation  (cotidilutioiic)  of  the  epic  shouhl  last  as  long  as  the  pres- 
entation of  several  trajicdies,  wliich  arc  recited  one  after  another 
in  one  day;  and  secondly,  that  the  ci)ic  should  not  be  so  long  that 
it  cannot  be  read  in  a  day.  Although  Aristotle  had  placed  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  length  of  the  presentation  of  tragedy  outside  the  theory 
of  poetry,  Castelvctro  includes  the  question  in  his  treatise,  and, 
identifying  the  time  of  the  presentation  with  the  time  of  the  action  of 
the  tragedy,  disagrees  with  the  first  rule  regariling  the  epic,  because 
many  tragedies  naturally  ought  not  to  be  capable  of  being  recited 
in  one  day,  one  after  another,  according  to  his  idea,  for  each  tragedy 
has  its  limits  conformable  to  one  turn  of  the  sun.  How  then,  ho 
asks,  if  each  tragedy  occupies  a  whole  day,  can  several  be  recited 
in  one  day,  one  after  the  other  ? 

Regarding  the  second  rule,  Castelvctro  asks:  "If  the  epic  ought 
not  to  exceed  one  day  in  roa<ling,  according  to  Aristotle,  where 
would  be  the  divinity  of  Homer  (wlio  is  so  much  admired  by  him), 
who  has  made  two  epic  poems,  neither  of  which  could  be  read  even 
in  a  few  days"?'  Regarding  these  two  points  Castelvctro  denies, 
then,  that  the  length  of  the  epic  should  be  equal  to  the  number  of 
tragedies  read  in  a  day,  and  that  the  length  of  the  epic  is  in  reality 
restricted  to  one  day.  He  ascribes  to  the  poem  a  length  conformable 
to  the  natural  needs  of  the  audience,  and  concludes  that  the  epic 
cannot  be  extended  to  such  a  length  that  it  would  be  unreasonable 
to  recite  it  to  the  people  at  one  time,  that  is,  in  as  many  hours  as 
the  people  could  listen  in  comfort.  Therefore  the  long  epics  are 
divided  into  such  lengths  as  are  vcrisimilc,  so  that  the  author  may 
comfortably  recite  and  the  auditors  listen  to  him  at  a  single  time. 

Castelvctro  cannot  believe  that  Homer  would  have  committed 
such  an  error  as  to  continue  twenty-four  books  without  any  division, 
reciting  all  of  them  at  one  time.  The  epic  can  divide  its  narration 
into  many  books,  which  nevertheless  do  not  contain  more  than  one 
action,  and  can  recite  one  book  per  day  without  occasioning  any 
great  difficulty  in  following  the  story.'    Despite  this  great  freedom 

•  Ibid.,  p.  632. 
'Ibid.,  p.  110. 


y 


20  RALni    C.    WlLUAMS 

in  the  unity  of  time,  conpliidos  Ca.stclvctro  (an<l  tliis  .Matcniciit  is 
sipiilicant),  the  more  the  time  of  the  action  in  the  epic  will  be 
restricted,  the  more  jiraiscworthy  it  will  be.  The  same  is  true  of 
the  nnity  of  place.  The  epic  is  not  limited  a.s  regards  place,  for  its 
action  can  lake  place  in  heaven  or  hell,  on  land  or  .sea,  or  in  the  air. 
"Nevertheless,  in  the  epic  al.so,  the  more  the  place  is  restricted,  tlic 
more  it  is  commendable  and  the  more  docs  the  epic  succeed."' 

But  rastelvctro,  in  spite  of  the  singular  lircadth  of  vision  which 
we  have  noted,  docs  not  entirely  escape  from  the  tendency  of  tlie 
typical  sixtcenth-ccjitury  critic  to  impose  rigorous  restrictions  on 
the  fonns  of  literature.  While  apjiarently  allowing  extreme  liberty, 
he  qualifies  his  assertions.  The  unity  of  action  is  not  imperative, 
but  the  poet  who  desires  to  show  his  excellence  will  strive  for  it; 
the  imity  of  time  is  not  neces.sary,  yet  the  more  the  tinjc  of  the 
action  in  the  epic  is  restricted,  the  more  praiseworthy  it  will  be. 
There  are  no  limits  regarding  the  place  in  which  the  epic  action  may 
occur,  yet  the  more  limited  the  place,  the  more  is  the  poem  to  be 
commended. 

In  conclusion  it  may  be  said,  then,  that  all  the  writers  of  the 
sixteenth  century-,  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  recognize  the  impor- 
tance of  the  unity  of  action  in  the  epic;  but  in  saying  that  they 
recognize  the  importance  of  the  unity  of  action,  one  is  at  the  same 
time  svmnning  up  the  total  extent  of  their  agreement.  The  unity  of 
action  for  Trissino  is  different,  for  instance,  from  the  unity  of  action 
according  to  Castelvetro,  and  different  again  from  that  of  Giraldi 
or  Pigna.  _Giraldi  Cinthio  conceives  the  heroic  poem  as  being  in 
three  forms:  that  describing  one  action  of  one  man,  that  narrating 
many  actions  of  one  man,  and,  lastly,  that  narrating  many  actions 
of  many  men.  He  would  prescribe  for  the  first  form  unity  of  action, 
along  with  all  the  other  precepts  of  Aristotle  and  Horace.  The 
second,  that  condcnmed  by  Aristotle,  manifestly  would  not  be 
governed  by  his  rules.  The  third  form,  under  which  would  be 
included  the  works  of  Boiardo  and  Ariosto,  and  in  fact  all  the  romanzi, 
would  likewise  be  devoid  of  Aristotelian  unity  of  action  and  its 
attendant  unity  of  time.  Giraldi,  although  declaring  his  respect 
for  the  precepts  of  the  ancients,  believes  that  the  romanzi  furnish  a 

I  Oaslolvotro,  vp.  ci't,  p.  63S. 


Epic  Unity  in  Sixtbbntii-Centuhy  Italy  21 

type  wliich  is  not  governed  by  their  laws,  inasinucb  as  it  is  a  genre 
invented  since  their  time.  lie  accepts  the  Aristotelian  idea  of  the 
organism,  however,  as  excellent,  and,  despite  the  greater  freedom  in 
choice  of  subject  which  he  permits,  he  cautions  an  adherence  to  the 
organic  idea  of  arrangement,  a  matter  which  has  to  do  with  the 
question  of  treatment  rather  than  with  tliat  of  unity.'^-JIe  states 
more  clearly  than  either  Robortelli  or  Segnithe  basic  relationship  of 
the  plot  to  the  composition  as  a  whole — "it  is  the  bones  and  founda- 
tion of  the  whole  work";  and  although  the  romami  can  include 
episodes  dealing  with  events  which  could  not  be  so  conveniently 
representetl  in  a  poem  dealing  with  a  single  action,  they  should  fit 
into  this  larger  organic  whole  as  related  parts  of  the  body. 

Pigna  agrees  with  Giraldi  in  the  belief  that  the  romami  observe 
no  narrow  unity  of  action.  For  him,  the  romanzi  belong  more 
l)ropcrly  to  the  second  type  of  epic  as  outlined  by  the  latter,  that  is, 
they  describe  many  actions  of  one  man  rather  than  many  actions  of 
many  men,  under  which  categoiy  the  romanzi  had  been  placed  by 
(liraldi.  In  treating  as  many  actions  of  one  man  as  was  deemed 
suitable,  not  making  one  action  supreme  and  the  others  subordinate, 
the  writers  of  romanzi,  despite  Pigna's  as.sertion,  committed  the  very 
fault  condemned  by  Aristotle  when  he  spoke  of  the  mistake  of  the 
writers  treating  many  actions  of  one  man.  Apparently  ignorant  of 
this  fact,  Pigna  pretends  that  Aristotle  had  been  the  guide  to  such 
writings.  If  Aristotle  had  inspired  the.se  writers,  one  is  safe  in 
a-sserting  that  it  certainly  was  not  in  the  chapter  of  the  Poetics 
dealing  with  the  vmity  of  action. 

IJoth  Trissino  and  Minturuo  are  followers  of  the  ideas  of  Aristotle 
regarding  the  unity  of  action,  or  rather,  followers,  of  their  own  inter- 
pretations of  the  ideas  of  Aristotle.  Botli  repeat  the  words  of  the 
ytagiritc  when  they  assert  that  the  plot  should  be  a  single,  perfect, 
and  complete  whole,  with  a  length  capable  of  being  gra-sped.  But 
just  as  we  saw  in  his  introduction  to  the  Italia  libcrata,  Trissino 
shows  in  his  Poelica  that  he  has  a  broail  idea  of  unity  of  action  when 
he  cited  the  Decameron  as  an  example  of  such  unity.  This  long 
succession  of  unrelated  stories  apparently  ajipears  to  Trissino  to  be 
sufficiently  bound  together  by  the  plan  stated  in  the  introduction, 
to  be  considered  a  unit,  although  it  seems  difficult  for  us  to  consider 


22  U.M.rii  C.  Williams 

tlio  Decameron  as  aiiytliiiiK  but  a  series  of  stories  (leseril)iii^  iiiany 
actions  of  many  men.  Swell  a  tiiinj;  is  evidently  permissible,  aei^ord- 
ing  to  Trissino  ami  Minturno,  if  everything  lia.s  its  oripin  from  one 
beRinniiifi  ami  is  directed  to  one  end.  It  was  on  tlie  prourul  of  failinj; 
to  adhere  to  this  arrangement  that  Minturno  eriticizes  the  romanzi. 
Minturno  dilTers  from  Aristotle  as  regards  tlie  unity  of  time.  lie 
finds  juslifieation  for  his  theory  of  the  limitation  of  tlie  length  of  the 
epic  action  to  one  year  in  the  practice  of  Homer  in  the  Hiud  and 
the  Odysscij,  and  thus  differs  from  the  Stagirite,  who,  basing  his 
conclusions  on  the  same  poems,  states  that  the  epic  has  no  definite 
limits.  Trissino  followed  Aristotle  to  the  extent  of  not  endeavoring 
to  cstalilish  any  time  limits  for  the  heroic  poem. 

Trissino's  apparent  broadening  of  the  Aristotelian  unity  to 
include  his  war  of  Ju.stinian  is  an  insignificant  departure  compared 
with  that  of  Castelvetro,  who  does  not  even  pretend  to  follow 
Aristotle.  Castelvetro  bases  his  whole  contention  on  the  fact  that 
poetry  is  an  imitation  of  history,  and  as  such  is  capable  of  including 
all  those  things  with  which  hi.story  deals.  Fundamentallj'  he  is  con- 
tending for  the  same  sort  of  unity  as  that  advocated  by  Giraldi  and 
Pigna,  but  they  are  led  to  adopt  this  broader  unity  by  pursuing 
difTcrent  ways;  Castelvetro  arrives  over  the  broad  highway  of  his- 
torj',  Giraldi  and  Pigna  by  the  devious  pathway  of  the  episodes  in 
the  romanzi. 

Ralph  C.  Williams 

Ohio  Statb  University 


VITA 

I  was  born  in  18S7  in  Cleveland,  Ohio.  I  was  gradualed  wilh  iionor 
from  llie  Jolins  Hopkins  University  in  iQoS,  receiving  the  degree  of 
Bachelor  of  Arts.  I  returned  to  the  University  in  1914  as  a  graduate 
student  in  the  Romance  Ljinguage  Department  and  held  a  scholarship 
for  the  two  years,  1915-17.  I  am  at  present  Assistant  Professor  of 
Romance  Languages  at  Ohio  State  University. 

I  desire  to  exjiress  my  sincere  thanks  to  Professor  J.  E.  Shaw  for 
suggesting  the  subject  of  this  dissertation  and  for  his  extremely  valuable 
assistance  in  its  composition;  and  I  wish  to  express  my  gratitude  to 
Professor  E.  C.  Armstrong  wliose  suggestions  greatly  facilitated  the 
progress  of  this  work.  I  am  indebted  also  to  Dr,  J.  E.  Spingarn  for  his 
courtesy  in  placing  his  library  at  my  disposal,  to  Professor  C.  W.  E.  Miller 
for  his  assistance  in  the  translation  of  some  passages  of  Aristotle's  Poetics, 
and  to  Professor  J.  L.  Gerig,  of  Columbia  University,  for  his  suggestions 
regarding  tlie  bibliography.  The  assistance  of  Dr.  Raney,  the  librarian 
of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  in  securing  the  necessary  books  of 
reference  ought  not  to  pass  without  a  word  of  appreciation. 

Ralph  C.  Williams 


0  00500  0128 


w 


I'. 


V  ^  '•      it* 


